This was an interesting book (although their economic analysis is not great). I think by now all the atrocities of the CIA are pretty well documented and the world is pretty informed. This book focuses on a period that took place about 75 years ago when the US (under Nixon, JFK and Reagan) had a strong anti-communist stance and active policy.

That policy is to longer an actionable framework for the US. It wouldnt be fair to attribute the current agency the same level of culpability. I’m not saying the current CIA is beyond scrutiny but times have changed and the world has moved significantly beyond the so called dangers of the cold war.

I just imagine Pim Toole grabbing the cash with his eyes closed as Lauren slides it across the table.

You actually have to pay a hefty fee to denounce your citizenship

There’s no way they’re not anticipating this. We didn’t all wake up yesterday to Trump.

Yes. “Grigorian” was the fictitious investor they set up to act as the funding source.

However, in the communication between Chen and her husband they were able to figure out whoever that they were based out of Russia. In one of the messages between the they are found looking up Moscow time to check why Grigorian hadn’t replied to a communication.

It’s crazy.

Lauren and her partner are Canadians (Persons 1&2 in the indictment). They set up a company in Tennessee to manage production and pay the ‘talent’.

It’s in the indictment: Tenet Media

Just them going after Adobe is enough for Kamala to get my vote. Fuck Adobe.

Lego has shifted (or is trying to shift) towards a more plant based, biodegradable plastic. They have to put a big effort because their entire product line is based on a material that has (rightfully so) negative connotations.

Man, the straw man was about having access to the internet as an example of uncensored access to information invalidating book moderation. It wasn’t about equivocating between different degrees of offending narratives. I was just following the principle to its final conclusion.

It doesn’t have to be a snuff film. That was an example or meant to be a hypothetical to further the discussion. I don’t see how nitpicking it is constructive if it sidesteps my point.

Now we get to an actual strawman -Finally! My position has never been the banning of all books, but rather questioning if moderation is useful or not. You can’t say that the logical conclusion of some moderation is total banning because it doesn’t follow.

The person I replied to said internet exists so banning books is worthless anyway which is not a terrible argument. I think it’s worth considering it 2024. I was just taking the hypothetical to its extreme conclusion to test if it was still a principled position to have. I think we all agree at this point.

Anyway. I’m not pro banning and I appreciate the convo so thanks.

Cheers!

I totally agree. Thanks for contributing your perspective. I really appreciate it. I think the only factor perhaps to consider is liability. The internet is completely decentralized so the onus is more spread out maybe? I’m gonna think on this a little but I do concede that you make a good point in that the info is already out there. Twenty years ago our conversation might have sounded totally different.

Thanks!

It’s called “reductio ad absurdio”. It’s a method in philosophy to examine arguments/principles by taking to the most extreme example and it’s what came to mind. Again, I personally am not for banning. I’m just playing devil’s advocate.

So far all the arguments brought by repubs in favor of banning have not convinced me. The only thing so far has been conversations with my wife who is a teacher.

To be clear, I’m just musing on an internet forum because censorship is an interesting topic to me. I’m not on the “pro-ban camp”.

Edit: also it’s not a “straw man” if it logically follows from the original premise. People : stop throwing this expression around unless you really understand how logical fallacies work.

I honestly think it’s just a resource issue. If there are enough staffers and teachers around then there really should be a problem. The main counter my wife (a teacher) gave is that most school districts just don’t have the necessary staff to moderate/work with the kids.

I expected people would bring up personal anecdotes to justify things.

I’m sorry about your experience. I’m glad you didn’t kill anyone. When we talk about policy, we’re talking about something that can be scaled. That’s why when we pass legislation it’s not helpful to look at single individual examples but at the broader picture.

I have nothing against kids exploring moral quandaries. We are talking about who takes the responsibility of delivering the content.

When my wife was a teacher, a 12 year old commitei suicide at home, which is insanely rare. Now, this kid was completely neglected at home. Should we allow kids to check out books that encourage suicide? Should the school district take on that liability? I know this is also an anecdotal example, but it’s interesting to explore the other perspective no?

So you’re saying because the internet is available school libraries should let 7 year Olds watch “A Serbian Film”. What is this logic? Do you understand what we’re even debating at this point? We’re talking about who has the onus to moderate school books.

Should a 7 year old victim of SA be exposed to a novel with graphic depictions of rape?

Should a 9 year old check out a book that gives instructions on making pipe bombs?

Are all parents ever-present in their children’s lives?

You really can’t spend two seconds thinking about this? I’m not asking you to compromise your abolutist position. I’m OK if you don’t shift on this position. I’m just asking you to reflect on why it’s not so simple.

I have a seven year old that reads at a fifth grade level (he was lucky he learned early). I can think of a miriad things worse than Mei kampf that I’m conflicted he should have access to. I’m all for unrestricted access, but what if he picks up a book with graphic depictions of rape? I don’t know that I want him confronting this at such a young age. What about kids with trauma?

These are just off the bat of my head. I can think of many more examples. That’s why when the unrestricted crowd comes in I sometimes scratch my head. Do you guys have children? It’s not so simple if you think about it for more than a few seconds. Again, I don’t have a right answer. I just wish people stopped and reflected a bit.

I’m not a republican. I’m a soc-dem.

I was interested in exploring the various scenarios and having a conversation, but as usual -and in typical lemmy fashion- we went straight to labels.

You really think the only conversation around book bans revolves around some people that are prudish? There aren’t any other possible scenarios?

Yea. There has to be some kind of balancing act. I don’t know what the right answer is. My wife is a teacher and we spar over this sometimes. I lean towards not banning but she claims the resources just aren’t there to vet and manage check-out. She concedes that if there were more resources and staff available then it wouldn’t be an issue.

This does bring up a good question though: Should access be

• Completely unrestricted?
• Somewhat restricted?
• Heavily moderated?

The last time I posed this question I got dogpiled on Lemmy but I feel like people are really not thinking through the consequences. And if you can’t, then you should really pause and think about it.

There are pros and cons for each stance. I just don’t think it’s that simple as many here want it to be.

Edit : to be clear, Im not pro-banning. I’m just musing online hoping to hear other perspectives. I’m not offended if you down vote, but I was hoping to hear more your opinion.

Depends. By what metric? It’s the fifth largest economy in the world with the top literacy rate in the nation. What are you comparing it to? Mississippi? I need more than but muh California!!!